Independent AML Audit Services in UAE
Independent AML Audit Services for UAE Regulated Entities
Independent, risk-based AML/CFT/CPF testing for UAE regulated entities.
AML UAE provides independent testing of AML/CFT/CPF frameworks for financial institutions, DNFBPs and virtual asset service providers. Every engagement is scoped to the entity’s sector, risk profile and supervising authority, because a real estate brokerage supervised by MoET and a finance company supervised by CBUAE are not tested the same way and should not receive the same report.
The distinguishing feature of our work is evidence. A review that reads your policies can tell you whether your framework is well written. Only testing can tell you whether it operates. We sample customer files, screening outcomes, alerts, escalations and reporting records, walk through the controls with the people who run them, and report what the evidence actually shows.
Independent testing of control design and operating effectiveness, not a policy read-through
Scoped against the requirements that apply to your licence and supervisor
Findings written with the evidence, the regulatory reference and a prioritised remediation action
Reports structured for both the compliance function and the board
What the service is designed to assess
An independent AML audit examines six connected areas, weighted according to your risk profile rather than applied uniformly.
Effectiveness and adequacy of the AML/CFT/CPF framework as a whole
Whether documented controls are genuinely implemented in day-to-day operations
The business risk assessment and whether controls are calibrated to the risks it identifies
Customer due diligence, beneficial ownership and enhanced due diligence controls
Monitoring, screening and reporting processes, including escalation and decision quality
Governance, compliance responsibilities, record keeping and training
The legal basis sits in the current federal framework. Federal Decree-Law No. 10 of 2025 and its Executive Regulations issued under Cabinet Resolution No. 134 of 2025, in force from 14 December 2025, require regulated entities to maintain internal anti-crime policies, controls and procedures, and expressly include an independent audit function to test their effectiveness and adequacy. Supervisory authorities then layer their own requirements on top of that federal baseline.
When a regulated entity may engage an independent AML auditor
There is no single universal trigger. Audit arrangements and frequency vary by entity, sector, supervisory authority and applicable regulatory requirements, which is precisely why the first step in any engagement is confirming what applies to you. In practice, entities engage an independent auditor in seven situations.
- Required periodic independent testing, where the applicable regime sets an expectation for your entity type
- Preparing for a regulatory inspection, where evidence needs to exist before it is requested
- Responding to supervisory findings, where independent verification of closure is expected
- Major business model, product, channel or jurisdiction changes that alter the control environment
- Material changes in risk exposure, including growth in volumes, customer segments or higher-risk relationships
- Post-implementation validation, to confirm a newly built or rebuilt framework operates as designed
- Board or senior management assurance, where the governing body needs independent comfort rather than management reporting
If more than one of these applies, the audit is usually more valuable scoped around the specific driver than as a general annual exercise.
Would Your Controls Pass Independent Testing?
Share your sector and regulator to discuss the right audit scope.
Who Needs Independent AML Audit Services in the UAE?
Federal obligations apply across regulated sectors, but the way an audit is scoped and what a supervisor expects to see differ considerably. The distinction matters commercially as well as technically, because an audit built for the wrong regime produces a report that does not answer the questions you will be asked.
Financial Institutions
CBUAE-supervised institutions including banks, finance companies, exchange houses, payment service providers and insurance entities are expected to maintain an independent audit function, with testing covering the effectiveness and adequacy of the AML/CFT programme on a risk-based footing.
Audits in this sector typically carry greater depth in transaction monitoring, sanctions screening governance, correspondent relationships where relevant, and the quality of management information reaching the board. Sample sizes are larger, and supervisors expect the testing approach itself to be documented and justified.
Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions
DNFBPs sit fully within the federal framework, and MoET’s 2026 sector guidance continues to position independent audit as part of the AML/CFT/CPF control framework. The categories most commonly engaging us are:
Real estate businesses, including brokers and agents handling relevant transactions
Dealers in precious metals and stones, including DPMSR reporting controls
Trust and company service providers, with particular focus on ownership structures and nominee arrangements
Lawyers and relevant legal professionals, where activities bring them within scope
Independent accountants and auditors, including client acceptance and source of funds controls
Other applicable DNFBP categories under the relevant sector supervisor
The audit here must be proportionate. Testing a twelve-person brokerage against a bank’s control expectations produces findings that are technically accurate and practically useless. We scope to the nature and size of the business, which is also what the framework requires.
Virtual Asset Service Providers
VASPs fall within the current federal AML/CFT/CPF framework, and their supervisory regime frequently adds requirements on top. An audit for a VASP therefore tests both layers: federal obligations covering risk assessment, CDD, monitoring and reporting, and authority-specific requirements attaching to the licence.
Sector-specific testing usually covers Travel Rule controls and the completeness of originator and beneficiary information, blockchain analytics coverage and how on-chain findings are combined with customer information, exposure controls around mixers and unhosted wallets, and whether suspicious activity narratives are written so that a non-specialist reader can follow the evidence.
Free zone and sector-specific regulated entities
This is where generic audit offerings most often fail. Entities may be subject to federal requirements and to a separate regulator’s rulebook simultaneously, and the two are not interchangeable.
| Layer | What it sets | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Federal framework | Baseline AML/CFT/CPF obligations for FIs, DNFBPs and VASPs | Federal Decree-Law No. 10 of 2025 and Cabinet Resolution No. 134 of 2025 |
| Supervisory authority | Sector and licence-specific requirements, including testing expectations | CBUAE, DFSA, FSRA, SCA, VARA, MoET, MoJ, GCGRA and relevant free zone authorities |
Before scoping, we confirm which authority supervises you, what your licence category requires, and whether the regime sets specific expectations about who may perform the testing and how frequently. That confirmation is part of the engagement, not an assumption made before it.
Not Sure Which Rules Apply to You?
Tell us your regulator and sector. We will confirm the applicable audit scope.
What Does an Independent AML Audit Cover?
Scope is set by your risk profile and regulatory regime, then tested across eight areas. In each one we assess two distinct things: whether the control is designed adequately, and whether it operates as designed. A well-designed control that nobody performs is a finding, and so is a diligently performed control that was never designed to address the risk.
AML/CFT/CPF governance and compliance framework
Roles, responsibilities and oversight
We test whether AML responsibilities are formally assigned, understood by the people holding them and actually exercised. Job descriptions that reference compliance duties, with no evidence those duties were discharged, is one of the most common governance findings.
Compliance Officer and MLRO governance
Testing covers the appointment itself against applicable requirements, the officer’s access to information and to senior management, reporting frequency and content, and whether escalations reaching the role were assessed and documented on a consistent basis.
Three lines of defence arrangements
We assess whether the three lines are genuinely separated in practice. Where the same individual designs a control, operates it, tests it and reports on it, the structure exists on paper only, and we report it as a structural weakness rather than a documentation gap.
Business risk assessment and risk methodology
Customer, geographic, product and delivery channel risks
We test whether each risk category is assessed with supporting rationale, whether the assessment reflects the business as it currently operates, and whether identified risks trace to specific mitigating controls.
Risk rating methodology
Testing covers the factors used, their weightings, how ratings are calculated and whether overrides are controlled and justified. We re-perform ratings on a sample of customers to check the methodology produces consistent outcomes when applied by different staff.
Documentation and review frequency
Cabinet Resolution No. 134 of 2025 requires regulated entities to identify, understand, manage and assess crime risks proportionately to the nature and size of the business, and to document and update the related processes. We test whether the assessment was documented, approved, reviewed on a defined cycle and updated on material change.
AML policies, procedures and internal controls
Policy to practice testing
We compare what the policy requires against what the records show happened. This comparison generates more findings than any other single test, because frameworks drift while documents stay still.
Control design versus operating effectiveness
Design testing asks whether the control would address the risk if performed correctly. Operating effectiveness testing asks whether it was performed, by whom, when, and with what evidence. Both are reported separately so remediation targets the right problem.
Regulatory change alignment
We test whether changes in the federal framework and supervisory requirements were identified, assessed for impact and implemented, with version control and approval records demonstrating the update actually happened.
KYC, CDD, EDD and beneficial ownership
Customer identification and verification
Sample testing of files against your own standards and the applicable requirements, covering document adequacy, verification method, currency of information and consistency across onboarding channels.
Beneficial ownership controls
Testing of UBO identification and verification, treatment of layered structures, nominees and trusts, and whether the recorded ownership position is supported by evidence rather than customer declaration alone.
High-risk customers and enhanced due diligence
The executive regulations require risk-based CDD with appropriate enhanced measures for higher-risk relationships. We test whether high-risk customers were correctly identified, whether EDD measures genuinely addressed the risk that triggered them, and whether senior management approval was obtained where required.
PEP controls
Testing covers PEP identification including family members and close associates, source of wealth and source of funds expectations, approval routing and ongoing review frequency.
Sanctions, targeted financial sanctions and screening
Screening governance
We test list coverage and update frequency, screening scope across customers, UBOs, counterparties and payments where relevant, re-screening triggers, and whether screening is performed at the points the framework says it is.
Escalation and investigation
Testing covers who may clear a potential match, on what basis, within what timeframe, and whether disposition records explain the reasoning with supporting evidence rather than recording an outcome alone.
Freezing and reporting controls where applicable
Where applicable to the entity, we test whether procedures exist for freezing, reporting and record keeping within required timeframes, and whether staff responsible could actually execute them under time pressure.
Transaction monitoring and suspicious transaction reporting
Monitoring rules and thresholds
Testing covers whether monitoring is risk-based, whether rules address the typologies identified in the risk assessment, whether thresholds are documented with rationale and approved, and whether periodic review took place.
Alert handling and escalation
Sample testing of alerts across analysts, scenarios and outcomes, assessing investigation depth, decision consistency, documentation quality and timeliness, together with alert ageing and backlog as indicators of capacity pressure.
STR and SAR processes and goAML controls
Testing covers escalation from first line to the MLRO, the basis on which filing decisions were made, timeliness, narrative quality, goAML process controls and record keeping. Decisions not to file receive the same testing attention as decisions to file, because both are examinable.
Record keeping and employee training
Documentation and audit trail
We test retention periods, retrievability and completeness, including whether a sampled decision can be reconstructed from the records alone. Retrievability is tested in practice, not by asking whether records exist.
Training records and effectiveness
Testing covers coverage across staff and roles, frequency, whether content reflects the entity’s actual risks, evidence of completion, follow-up for non-completion, and whether any measure of comprehension exists.
Technology and AML systems
Where relevant to scope, we test the controls around screening, onboarding, risk scoring and monitoring systems: configuration against approved parameters, data completeness reaching the system, user access and change management. Not every engagement includes technology testing, and where deeper independent system validation or UAT is required, that is scoped as a separate engagement rather than presented as part of a standard audit.
Not Sure Your Controls Would Withstand Testing?
Share your sector, regulator and business profile to discuss audit scope.
Our Independent AML Audit Methodology
Our methodology runs in six stages. Each produces a defined output, and scope is agreed in writing before any testing begins.
1. Initial scoping and regulatory mapping
We establish the facts that determine everything else in the engagement.
Legal entity structure and the business activities actually performed
Supervisory authority and licence category, including any specific testing requirements
Jurisdiction, whether mainland, free zone, DIFC or ADGM
Risk profile based on customers, products, geographies and channels
The existing AML framework and its maturity
Audit period, sample approach and agreed scope, confirmed in writing
This stage produces the regulatory mapping that every finding will later reference. It also identifies at the outset whether any element of the intended scope is inappropriate for your regime, which is better established now than in the report.
2. Document and framework review
We review the framework as documented, which establishes the standard against which operations will then be tested.
AML/CFT/CPF policies and their approval history
Procedures and operational guidance used by staff
Business risk assessment and customer risk methodology
Governance documents, terms of reference and committee records
Training records, materials and completion evidence
Reporting records to senior management, the board and the supervisor
Registers and evidence including STR logs, screening records and issue logs
3. Sample-based testing
This is the stage that separates an audit from a review. We test actual records rather than descriptions of process.
Customer files across risk ratings, onboarding periods and channels
Transactions, where relevant to the entity's activity and risk profile
Alerts and their investigation records, sampled across analysts and outcomes
Screening outcomes including potential match dispositions
Reporting records, including internal escalations and filings
Sample sizes and selection methods are agreed during scoping and documented in the report, so your supervisor can see how conclusions were reached. Risk-based selection means higher-risk populations are tested more heavily than a purely random sample would allow.
4. Interviews and control walkthroughs
Compliance and MLRO walkthrough
Structured discussion covering how the framework operates in practice, where the officer sees pressure, and how decisions are made and recorded.
Operational control walkthrough
We observe the control being performed by the people who perform it. Walkthroughs routinely reveal that the documented process and the actual process diverged some time ago, usually for practical reasons nobody recorded.
Evidence validation
Statements made in interview are corroborated against records. Where they cannot be corroborated, that is reported as an evidence gap rather than accepted or dismissed.
5. Findings and risk classification
Every finding is reported in a consistent structure so it can be acted on without further interpretation.
| Element | What it states |
|---|---|
| Finding | What was observed, specifically notices |
| Regulatory or control reference | The requirement or internal control affected |
| Evidence observed | The records, samples or observations supporting it |
| Risk implication | The consequence if left unaddressed |
| Recommended remediation | The specific action proposed |
| Management action | The entity's response and owner |
| Priority | Sequencing based on risk, not ease |
We do not apply a generic pass or fail model, because the underlying regulatory requirement is risk-based. A finding is rated by its risk implication for your entity, which is the framing a supervisor uses and the framing that lets management sequence remediation sensibly.
6. Independent AML audit report
The report is written for two audiences at once. The detailed sections give the compliance function what it needs to remediate, with evidence and references. The executive summary gives senior management and the board a clear view of the overall control position, the principal risks and what requires decision or resource. Draft findings are shared for factual accuracy before the report is finalised, and management responses are incorporated rather than appended as an afterthought.
Independent AML Audit vs AML Health Check vs AML Consulting
These three services are often conflated, and choosing the wrong one wastes budget and time. The difference is purpose, not depth.
| Service | Primary purpose | Typical output |
|---|---|---|
| Independent AML Audit | Independent testing of framework and control effectiveness | Independent audit report with evidenced findings |
| AML/CFT Health Check | Identify weaknesses and improvement areas | Gap or health check report |
| AML Consulting | Build, improve or maintain the AML framework | Advisory and implementation deliverables |
Which service does your organisation need?
A short decision path:
- You need independent assurance, or your regime expects independent testing, and you need an evidenced report for the board or supervisor, then an independent AML audit is the right engagement
- You suspect there are gaps and want them identified quickly without formal independent testing, then a health check is faster and less costly
- You know what needs building or fixing and need help doing it, then AML consulting is the right engagement
- You have audit findings and need them remediated, then consulting follows the audit rather than replacing it
One structural point worth stating. Independence means the auditor cannot test its own work. Where we conduct an independent audit, remediation support is scoped and staffed so that the independence of the audit is preserved. Entities needing framework development, policy work, training, managed KYC or ongoing advisory should look at AML Consulting Services in UAE, and we will say plainly where a consulting engagement is the better starting point.
Audit, Health Check or Consulting?
Tell us your situation and we will recommend the right engagement.
Why Choose AML UAE for Independent AML Audits?
UAE regulatory and sector-specific understanding
We work across CBUAE-supervised financial institutions, DNFBPs supervised by MoET and other sector authorities, VASPs, and firms regulated in DIFC and ADGM. Audit scope, sampling and reporting are built against the regime that applies to you rather than adapted from a generic template.
Risk-based audit approach
We work across CBUAE-supervised financial institutions, DNFBPs supervised by MoET and other sector authorities, VASPs, and firms regulated in DIFC and ADGM. Audit scope, sampling and reporting are built against the regime that applies to you rather than adapted from a generic template.
Independent and conflict-aware engagement model
Independence has to mean something operationally, so we make it concrete. We do not audit frameworks we designed or controls we operate. Where AML UAE has provided prior advisory work to an entity, the position is assessed before an audit is accepted, disclosed in the engagement terms, and the audit team is separated from the advisory team. Where independence cannot be maintained, we say so and decline the audit rather than qualify it quietly.
Practical, evidence-based findings
Findings state what was observed, in which sample, against which requirement, with a recommendation specific enough to implement. General observations such as weak governance arrangements are not findings, they are opinions, and they are not actionable.
Transparent engagement scope
Scope, testing depth, sample approach, timeline and deliverables are defined and agreed before commencement. You know what will be tested and what will not, which also means the report cannot quietly narrow to whatever was convenient.
Credentials, experience and evidence
Our team’s professional certifications, sector experience and engagement history are available on request, and we provide relevant references rather than unverifiable claims. We share only figures we can document, which is a reasonable standard to apply to any firm proposing to test your controls.
Independent AML Audit Process: From Enquiry to Final Report
The buying journey, step by step, so you know what your team will need to provide and when.
| Step | What happens | What you provide |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Share details | Regulatory and business profile captured | Entity, licence, sector, size |
| 2. Define scope | Scope, sampling and timeline agreed in writing | Confirmation and sign-off |
| 3. Submit documents | Framework and evidence collected securely | Policies, RA, registers, records |
| 4. Audit testing | Sampling, walkthroughs and interviews | Access to staff and records |
| 5. Review findings | Draft findings validated for accuracy | Management responses |
| 6. Final report | Report issued with executive summary | Board and supervisor distribution |
| 7. Remediation | Support where required, independence preserved | Agreed action plan |
Step 1: Share your regulatory and business details
Entity type, supervising authority, jurisdiction, activities, approximate size and what is driving the audit. This takes minutes and determines whether an audit is even the right engagement for your situation.
Step 2: Define the audit scope
We propose scope, testing depth, sample approach, period covered, timeline and fee. Nothing begins until this is agreed in writing.
Step 3: Submit required documents and evidence
A structured document request list is issued so your team collects everything once rather than responding to repeated ad hoc requests. Materials are handled securely and confidentially throughout.
Step 4: Conduct audit testing
Sample testing, walkthroughs and interviews are performed against the agreed scope. We keep your MLRO informed as testing progresses, so nothing in the draft report is a surprise.
Step 5: Review findings
Draft findings are shared for factual accuracy, and your management responses are captured against each one. Disagreement on a finding is documented rather than removed.
Step 6: Receive the final independent audit report
The final report is issued with the detailed findings, evidence summary, remediation recommendations, regulatory mapping and executive summary, ready for board and supervisory use.
Step 7: Remediation support, where required
Where you need help closing findings, support is scoped separately with the independence safeguards described above, so the integrity of the audit is not compromised by the remediation that follows it.
Ready to Arrange Your Audit?
Share your details and we will confirm scope, timeline and next steps.
What Does an Independent AML Audit Cost in the UAE?
Fees depend on scope and effort, which is why a credible quote follows a short scoping conversation rather than preceding it. Seven factors drive the number.
Factors that influence audit fees
Entity size and complexity
Staff numbers, customer volumes, organisational structure and the number of distinct control environments being tested.
Number of branches or entities
Multiple branches, subsidiaries or licences may require separate testing and reporting, or a group approach with locational sampling.
Regulatory jurisdiction
Requirements differ across CBUAE, DFSA, FSRA, SCA, VARA, MoET and other authorities, which affects both scope and the depth of documentation expected.
Customer file sample size
Sample size follows population size and risk distribution. Larger and more heterogeneous customer bases require more testing to support a conclusion.
Transaction volume and complexity
High volumes, multiple currencies, cross-border flows and complex products increase testing effort in monitoring and reporting areas.
Number of business activities
Entities performing several licensed activities carry more obligations and more control environments to test.
Scope of technology and control testing
Where system configuration, data completeness or access controls are within scope, effort increases accordingly.
Request an AML audit scope and quotation
Share your entity type, supervisor, jurisdiction, approximate size and the reason you are considering an audit. We will confirm the appropriate scope and provide a written quotation setting out exactly what is included, so cost can be assessed against defined deliverables rather than a headline figure.
How to Prepare for an Independent AML Audit
Preparation shortens the engagement and reduces cost, because time spent locating records is time not spent testing. Have the following available.
- AML/CFT/CPF policies and procedures, with approval records
- Business risk assessment and supporting analysis
- Customer risk assessment methodology and rating criteria
- Sample customer files across risk levels and onboarding periods
- Beneficial ownership records and supporting evidence
- Screening evidence, including potential match dispositions
- Monitoring and alert records with investigation documentation
- STR and goAML documentation where relevant, including decisions not to file
- Training records, materials and completion evidence
- Governance and management review evidence, including committee and board papers
- Previous audit or inspection findings and their remediation status
For a detailed walkthrough of how an audit works and what to do afterwards, see our guide covering the independent AML audit process and preparation. This service page focuses on the engagement itself, while the guide remains the informational reference.
The Independent Auditors Behind Your AML Review
Your AML audit is conducted by certified AML specialists with UAE regulatory experience, testing your policies, controls and procedures against your business risks and supervisory requirements to give you an objective view of where your framework stands:
Pathik Shah
CAMS, FCA, CS, CISA, DISA (ICAI), FAFD (ICAI)
Experience
28+ years
Regulatory Coverage
MoET, MoJ, CBUAE, CMA, FSRA, DFSA, VARA · AML/CFT framework design, RegTech
Jyoti Maheshwari
CAMS, ACA
Experience
11+ years
Regulatory Coverage
MoET, MoJ, CBUAE, CMA, FSRA, DFSA, VARA · AML/CFT/CPF framework, health checks
Dipali Vora
CAMS, ACS
Experience
10+ years
Regulatory Coverage
MoET, MoJ, CBUAE, CMA, FSRA, DFSA, VARA · Consulting, training, implementation
Monika Shah
CAMS
Experience
3+ years
Regulatory Coverage
MoET, MoJ, CBUAE, CMA, FSRA, DFSA, VARA · managed KYC, consulting, goAML reporting
Frequently Asked Questions About Independent AML Audit Services UAE
It is an objective examination of a regulated entity’s AML/CFT/CPF framework, performed by a party independent of the functions being tested. It assesses whether controls are adequately designed and operating effectively, using document review, sample testing of real records and control walkthroughs, and produces a report with evidenced findings and prioritised remediation recommendations.
The federal framework applies to financial institutions, DNFBPs and virtual asset service providers, and requires internal controls that include an independent audit function to test effectiveness and adequacy. How that requirement applies in practice, including who may perform the testing and how often, depends on your entity type, sector and supervising authority.
No. AML obligations apply to regulated entities, not to every UAE company. Within regulated sectors, the framework requires internal controls that include an independent audit function, but arrangements and frequency vary by entity, sector, supervisor and risk profile. Any provider telling you that every UAE business needs an annual audit is overstating the position, and the correct first step is confirming what your regime actually requires.
Frequency depends on the applicable regulatory regime, your entity type and your risk profile. Some supervisory regimes set specific periodic expectations for certain populations, while others expect risk-based independent testing at a frequency the entity can justify. Many entities also trigger an audit on events such as major business change, supervisory findings or framework implementation. We confirm the applicable position for your licence during scoping.
Independence means the testing is performed by someone separate from the functions being tested. A Compliance Officer or MLRO who designs and operates the AML framework cannot independently test their own work, and doing so undermines the purpose of the requirement. Some larger entities use an internal audit function that is structurally independent of compliance. Smaller entities generally appoint an external auditor. Sector-specific rules may also apply, so the position should be confirmed for your regime.
Typically governance and compliance oversight, the business risk assessment and risk methodology, policies, procedures and internal controls, KYC, CDD, EDD and beneficial ownership, sanctions and targeted financial sanctions screening, transaction monitoring, suspicious transaction reporting and goAML processes, record keeping, training, and where in scope the controls around AML systems. Coverage is weighted to your risk profile rather than applied uniformly.
Policies and procedures, the business risk assessment, customer risk methodology, a sample of customer files, beneficial ownership records, screening evidence, monitoring and alert records, STR and goAML documentation where relevant, training records, governance and management reporting, and any previous audit or inspection findings with their remediation status. A structured request list is issued at the start so nothing is collected twice.
It depends on scope, entity size, the quality and availability of records and the depth of testing agreed. A focused audit of a smaller entity with well-organised records completes considerably faster than a multi-entity engagement with substantial sample testing. We provide an indicative timeline with the scope proposal, and the single biggest variable is how quickly requested evidence is provided.
Findings are risk-classified and converted into a management action plan with owners, target dates and the evidence required to demonstrate closure. The entity remains responsible for remediation and for reporting progress to its governance forums, and where relevant to its supervisor. Findings should be tracked to evidenced closure rather than marked complete on assertion.
Yes, with independence safeguards. Remediation is scoped as a separate engagement with separation between the audit team and the remediation team, so the integrity of the audit is preserved. Where you prefer complete separation, we will support you in taking remediation elsewhere and will say so openly rather than quietly extend the engagement.
Share your entity type, supervising authority, jurisdiction, approximate size and what is driving the audit. We will confirm whether an audit is the right engagement, propose scope, sampling and timeline in writing, and provide a quotation against defined deliverables.
Arrange Your Independent AML Audit
Independent testing is worth doing properly or not at all. A report that reviews your policies and confirms they exist tells your board nothing it did not already know, and tells a supervisor even less.
AML UAE tests what actually happens: real files, real alerts, real screening decisions, real records. Findings arrive with the evidence attached, mapped to the requirements that apply to your licence, and prioritised so your team knows what to fix first.
Tell us your sector, your regulator and what is driving the audit. We will confirm the appropriate scope and next steps.
Arrange Your Independent AML Audit
Share your details and we will confirm scope, timeline and quotation.
